Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 1
Joining the Conversation: Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars
Emily L. Parks
Thompson Writing Program, Duke University
Author Note
I have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research was approved by Duke University’s
Campus Institutional Review Board (Protocol 2020-0093).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily L. Parks, Thompson
Writing Program, Trinity College of Arts & Sciences, Duke University, 1 Brodie Gym Drive, Durham, NC
27708, United States. Email: [email protected]
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 2
Abstract
Although today’s psychology students are well versed in the early stages of the scientific method
(developing a research question, designing an experiment), they are rarely asked to engage in the final
stage of the scientific method: building and communicating an idea among scholars. As a result,
students often fail to appreciate the “unending conversation” that is academic inquiry. To help students
learn to think like scientists and join a scholarly conversation, educators have tried mirroring elements
of scholarly practices in the classroom (e.g., writing, collaboration). Evidence in the natural sciences has
suggested that each of these pedagogical techniques, taken individually, can enhance students’ critical
thinking. More recent work in chemistry education, however, has demonstrated that a holistic
approach, engaging students in multiple scholarly practices, may lead to greater gains in critical thinking.
In this article, I argue for such an approach in psychology—one that more closely mirrors how scholars
operate in the real world. As a model, I present a scaffolded writing project that asks students to think
like scientists by engaging in multiple scholarly practices: collaborative writing, inquiry-based research,
and peer review. I hypothesize that students can make significant gains in critical thinking when they are
placed in the role of scholar. I thus call for a new direction in how we approach today’s psychology
students and highlight the critical need for empirical testing of this and other combinatory approaches.
Keywords: collaborative writing, peer review, critical thinking, scholarly conversation, literature
review
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 3
Joining the Conversation: Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars
Build on a foundation of science. (American Psychological Association, 2020, “Guiding
Principles” section)
Across undergraduate psychology curriculums, students are taught to explore human behavior
through the scientific method. They are often asked to form research questions, design studies, and
interpret the resulting data. Less commonly, however, are students taught the final step of the scientific
method: building and communicating an idea among scholars (Hogan & Fisherkeller, 2005).
As a result, students often fail to appreciate the ongoing exchange of ideas that occurs between
scholars (Goodney & Long, 2007), what rhetorician Kenneth Burke described as the “unending
conversation” (Burke, 1941, pp. 110–111). For scholars in psychology, this conversation might manifest
directly via peer review or coauthoring or more indirectly through the framing of data within the context
of others’ texts and theories (Harris, 2017). Across these cases, psychologists build their work—their
theories, experiments, and interpretations—by engaging with other scholars and their ideas.
This engagement structures how we, as psychological scientists, think. Most students, however,
have a limited understanding of how scientists interact to build knowledge over time (Hunter et al.,
2007). In my experience, we do not give our students enough time or space to struggle through the
scientific process, as scientists do. At best, we might ask students to engage in a single scholarly practice
(e.g., write an academic piece, pose a question, or work in groups). Indeed, some empirical research in
the natural sciences has demonstrated that each of these pedagogical techniques—writing, inquiry-
based research, collaboration—can enhance students’ critical thinking (Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007).
For example, Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who participated in a laboratory
writing component in an introductory biology course significantly improved their inference and analysis
skills compared with students who completed more traditional laboratory quizzes. Hein (2012) found
that students who learned organic chemistry through an inquiry-based approach scored significantly
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 4
higher on nationally standardized chemistry exams compared with students who learned through
lectures. Finally, Quitadamo et al. (2009) demonstrated gains in critical thinking across six math and
science courses for students participating in collaborative learning compared with a noncollaborative
approach (Quitadamo et al., 2009). These studies provide empirical evidence that writing, inquiry-based
research, and collaboration are all techniques that can enhance student learning. How these techniques
can be used together in a more holistic approach is less understood.
Recent work in chemistry education has indicated that more holistic approaches may better
mimic how scientists operate in the real world (Stephenson et al., 2019; Stephenson & Sadler-McKnight,
2016). Stephenson et al. (2019) found that students in introductory chemistry who were taught via an
approach that combined writing, inquiry-based research, and collaboration showed significant gains in
two empirical measures of critical thinking—inference and evaluation—unlike students taught through
traditional lectures. Stephenson et al. hypothesized that the large gains in critical thinking reflect a
synergistic effect resulting from the combinatory approach.
In this article, I argue for a similar approach in psychology—one that combines multiple
scholarly practices and thus better mirrors how scientists operate in the real world. As an example, I
present a scaffolded writing project in which I asked students to write collaboratively, conduct inquiry-
based research, and engage in peer review across the writing process. In this way, students could learn
to appreciate and join a scholarly conversation. I hypothesize that combinatory approaches, like the one
presented here, can help students make significant gains in critical thinking.
Why Writing?
Writing offers one of the most effective ways for making thinking visible (Reynolds et al., 2012)
and, when applied to disciplinary questions, helps students learn to think like disciplinary experts (Bean,
2011; Dowd et al., 2018; Meizlish et al., 2013). The act of writing is a form of problem-solving (Flower,
1998) that, like critical thinking, requires the coordination of many skills, including planning,
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 5
organization, and argumentation (Dunn & Smith, 2008). Writing can help students identify areas of
confusion, reason through problems, connect concepts, and analyze assumptions (Dunn et al., 2013;
Forsyth, 2003). As a practice, writing is ideally suited to foster critical thinking that mirrors that of
disciplinary experts (Dowd et al., 2018; Meizlish et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2012).
Collaborative writing, in particular, can help foster scholarly modes of thinking and
communication. It creates a community of learners who provide cognitive and social support beyond
that available to an individual working alone (Brown & Campione, 1996). In collaboration, students can
better organize their thoughts and identify gaps in their own reasoning (Okita, 2012; Speck, 2002) as
well as evaluate the evidence and assumptions underlying their claims (Stephenson & Sadler-McKnight,
2016). These modes of thinking are especially important when students are asked to develop their own
questions and subsequent responses.
Collaboration is critically important not only when an idea is initially developed but also when an
idea is molded and refined through peer review. Like writing, peer review can benefit students’ thinking
(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Matsuhashi et al., 1989). By seeing others’ logical missteps, students can
learn to identify an argument’s gaps or organizational inconsistencies (Beach, 1989; Ferris, 2003;
Thompson, 2002) and to analyze ideas from perspectives beyond their own (Paulus, 1999). As a result,
students who engage in peer review tend to revise their own work more extensively, produce stronger
texts, and better understand the scientific process (Brieger & Bromley, 2014; Guilford, 2001; Lee, 1997;
Rangachari, 2010; Rollinson, 2005; Trautmann, 2009). Some empirical evidence has suggested that even
web-based peer-review programs can improve students’ learning, but only when they are designed to
address higher-order writing concerns (Reynolds & Moskovitz, 2008). Thus, it seems the greatest gains
come when we challenge students to look beyond editing concerns and address the kinds of questions
that scientists ask of their own work.
In sum, by engaging in scholarly conversation—through collaborative writing, inquiry-based
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 6
research, and peer review—students can learn to think like scientists. These practices, in combination,
form the basis for the pedagogical model presented here.
A Writing-Centered Approach
My approach asks students to take on the role of scholar—to build and communicate an idea
within a community of peers. It centers on a sequenced writing project in which student pairs cowrite a
literature review on a topic of their choice. The goal of the project is to develop a novel claim by
forwarding previous research. This requires students to first frame their ideas within the context of
existing scholarly work and to then collaborate with peers as they develop their argument and give and
receive feedback. The project is heavily scaffolded using a combination of pedagogical techniques, some
of which have been shown individually to enhance student learning (Hein, 2012; Quitadamo et al., 2009;
Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007), whereas others are in need of empirical testing (e.g., synthesis matrices,
annotations responses, dialogue activities).
Course Design
The project was assigned to 1st-year students as part of an introductory, seminar-style writing
course at Duke University (12 students per course). The course was open to all 1st-year students
regardless of their intended major (at Duke, majors are not officially declared until the fourth semester
of enrollment). The course was offered as one of many Writing 101 sections, each taught through a
different disciplinary lens based on the expertise of the professor. As a cognitive psychologist and
neuroscientist by training, I centered my course on neurolaw, an emerging field that explores how
discoveries in brain science affect the U.S. justice system. For the project I propose here, students
explored any topic at the intersection of psychology and law (upon my approval). However, the project
could be applied in many different fields of study.
The project unfolded over several stages, each framed within the scholarly conversation and
designed to help students build critical-thinking and communication skills. Students produced several
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 7
assignments, including a proposal, annotated bibliography and responses, synthesis matrix, and three
drafts. Although students wrote most of the assignments outside of class, I often provided class time for
collaborative work, check-in meetings, and peer review. In this way, students were in continuous
dialogue with their partners and peers across the writing process. Next, I list the project stages (for a
visual depiction, see Figure 1).
Stages of the Writing Project
Stage 1: How Do Scholars Communicate? Set the Stage
At the start of the project, I introduced scientific thinking as a conversation, reminding students
that they are scholars capable of contributing to academic dialogue. We discussed how scientists build
their work by engaging with other scholars and their ideas. To practice these interactions (both socially
and across texts), students cowrote a court brief, using neuroscientific evidence to appeal the sentence
of a real court case (Graham v. Florida, 2010).
Stage 2: What Conversation Should I Join? Find a Topic and a Partner
Students self-selected a partner based on shared interests, identified on a set day of class. On
that day, each student presented a 2-min speech pitching a line of research. Students then participated
in a speed-dating activity (Muurlink & Poyatos Matas, 2011), with the goal of finding a partner and a
topic. Typically, pairs formed organically, although oftentimes students compromised to select what
academic conversation they would join. Once pairs formed, I met with each team in class to approve
their topic and brainstorm ideas. For example, we might discuss what specific gap in knowledge they
wanted to fill or how to narrow the scope of their topic. Across these interactions, students practiced
how to brainstorm ideas with peers, similar to scientists at professional conferences.
Stage 3: How Will We Collaborate as a Team of Scholars? Build a Plan for Collaboration
After completing a class team-building activity and reviewing the Peer Evaluation Form, partners
created a collaboration contract that detailed how they would work together. Students set goals and
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 8
established the principles through which the pair would operate. I encouraged teams to set weekly
meetings, emphasizing that those who meet both regularly and in person tend to produce the strongest
papers. Creating the collaboration contract helps students practice good work habits that professional
scientists use when interacting with colleagues (e.g., regular lab meetings).
Stage 4: What Are Scholars Discussing, and What Could We Add? Explore the Literature and Develop a
Research Question
Over several weeks, partners explored the literature and refined their topic into a research
question (RQ; e.g., To what extent should the legal system apply neuroprediction to assess reoffense in
juveniles?). First, we met with a librarian to discuss how to find and evaluate academic sources. Next,
we analyzed model texts, emphasizing the qualities of a good RQ and the ways in which scientists use
previous literature to build their work. Students then drafted an RQ, which we workshopped during an
in-class gallery walk (Francek, n.d.).
Stage 5: What Is Each Scholarly Voice Adding to the Conversation? Organize Previous Literature and
Analyze Model Literature Reviews
As coauthors developed their RQ, they continued to explore the literature outside of class. For
each source, students wrote an annotation, summarizing what a text claimed and how it fit into their
own work. Next, students began to connect the texts more directly, writing annotation responses that
analyzed how one reading relates to another. This written “discussion” between sources ensured that
partners read the same texts. It also created space for students to evaluate the quality of a source and
its relation to the RQ. At this stage, we also examined model academic literature reviews in class,
highlighting rhetorical “moves” scholars make when forwarding or countering an idea. This analysis
gives students a model for how to frame their own arguments.
Stage 6: How Can We Join the Dialogue? Develop a Novel Argument
Coauthors created a synthesis matrix (Clark & Buckley, 2017), a chart that visually arranges
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 9
sources around a series of claims that, when put together, build the students’ argument. Each column of
the matrix represents a source and each row a claim. Thus, a row as a whole represents the synthesis of
sources that build a given claim. The row could contain both confirmatory and counterevidence that
students put together to build a claim and potentially address a counterargument (e.g., Although X
argues…, we support Y’s theory because…). In sum, each cell in a row summarizes what a source adds to
the row’s claim. And the claims together, row by row, represent the logical unfolding of the students’
overall argument. In my experience, the synthesis matrix is pivotal in helping students organize their
ideas around the work of other scholars. It helps students mimic the thought processes that professional
scientists use when writing a literature review.
Stage 7: Join the Conversation: Draft, Revise, and Reflect
From the synthesis matrix, coauthors developed their literature review over three drafts that
underwent multiple stages of revision. As students prepared to draft, I again emphasized that writing is
a dialogue between scholars’ ideas. In class, we practiced building a scholarly conversation using a
dialogue activity where students wrote a playlike script between sources. We then translated the verbal
dialogue into a written one. In a follow-up activity called “mapping the conversation” (Pittock, 2014),
students arranged pieces of evidence (written on sticky notes) to create a visual representation of an
academic paragraph, which they then used to write an actual paragraph. Like the synthesis matrix, this
activity helps students learn to put texts in conversation.
Once Draft 1 was complete, students reviewed each other’s work extensively. First, I discussed
with students how to give meaningful, constructive feedback. Next, we conducted a large-group
workshop where students, in a structured setting, practiced giving feedback that focused on higher
order writing concerns. Once students felt more confident in their peer-review skills, they engaged in
small-group workshops that focused on various higher-order writing concerns (e.g., for peer-review
handouts). Across these workshops, students practiced multiple forms of peer review: verbal, like that
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 10
between coauthors, and written, like that between authors and reviewers or editors.
Students submitted their final draft, along with letters reflecting on their writing process, on the
last day of class. Papers were evaluated based on the criteria detailed in the prompt using a holistic
rubric developed by faculty in Duke’s Thompson Writing Program.
Outcomes
Student Reactions
Across five course sections (N = 57; three surveys incomplete), end-of-semester evaluations
suggested that the project helped students learn to think and communicate like academic scholars.
When asked about the collaborative writing process specifically, more than 90% of students “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” that collaborative writing, compared with writing on their own, helped them better
learn to (a) analyze others’ arguments and ideas, (b) express their own ideas more clearly, (c) synthesize
scholarly research, and (d) give more meaningful feedback to peers. In all cases, the majority of students
“strongly agreed.” When asked about the course more generally, all students agreed that the course
helped them learn to think and communicate like academic scholars.
Students also reflected on their collaborative writing experience in an open-ended writing
response. In the Appendix, I list excerpts from those reflections, highlighting three trends I observed in
students’ growth. First, students developed critical-thinking skills necessary to join the scholarly
conversation. They discussed learning how to analyze sources, identify knowledge gaps, and link sources
together. Second, through collaborative writing and peer review, students gained new perspectives on
their own thinking and writing. Students said they were better able to consider others’ perspectives and
to identify gaps in logic. And third, students became more confident in their writing and began to view
themselves as scholarly writers. Students shared an increased willingness to seek out feedback from
others, which helped them find their “voice” and feel more confident about their writing.
On the basis of these student reports, I hypothesize that the project can help students make
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 11
gains in many areas, including enhancing critical thinking, synthesizing ideas across sources,
communicating clearly and effectively, improving collaboration with peers, and learning how to give
meaningful and constructive feedback. These hypotheses are in need of testing and serve as a
foundation for future empirical research.
Discussion
The model presented here asks students to engage in multiple scholarly practices—collaborative
writing, inquiry-based research, and peer review—and thus mirrors how scientists operate in the real
world. The approach centers on a coauthored literature review that unfolds over several stages (see
Figure 1), each framed within the context of the scholarly conversation and designed to help students
build critical-thinking and communication skills.
The project could serve as a model for other psychology courses. The literature review is a
ubiquitous piece of writing in psychology, and faculty could tailor the project to address their course
topic. Of note, the project is particularly well suited for small, seminar-style courses where faculty can
serve as guides and foster a supportive community of scholars. It might be particularly useful for
seminars on scholarship in psychology or on thesis writing.
When considering a collaborative approach, faculty should evaluate several additional factors.
First, faculty should consider whether they have the time to prepare the project stages (e.g., organize a
library workshop, plan peer-review sessions, structure activities). In my experience, I needed extensive
time to scaffold the project initially; however, once structures were in place, I devoted most of my
energy to helping students learn to think through their own ideas. Second, faculty must be willing to use
class time flexibly so that students can brainstorm ideas, collaborate with their partner, and share
feedback. And finally, faculty must be willing to prioritize skill development—to let students grapple
with the collaborative writing process.
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 12
Next Steps
A significant challenge in psychology education is how to teach students to think and
communicate critically. A second challenge is how to confirm that our teaching methods are indeed
meeting this aim. Although critical thinking is a difficult construct to define and quantify (Stephenson et
al., 2019), researchers have developed some standardized measures. One popular assessment tool is the
California Critical Thinking Skills Test, which defines critical thinking as a synthesis of higher order
cognitive skills, including analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction (Panettieri, 2015;
Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007). The test has been evaluated for validity and reliability in measuring critical
thinking at the collegiate level (Facione, 1990), and it may therefore be an appropriate instrument for
evaluating pedagogical approaches like my own.
Conclusion
In sum, I call for a new direction in psychology education—one that centers students in scholarly
conversation and practice. To this end, I present a holistic approach that engages students in
collaborative writing, inquiry-based research, and peer review. I hypothesize that by embracing the role
of scholar, through the combination of these practices, students can grow as critical thinkers and
communicators. Future research must test this hypothesis, evaluating the effectiveness of this and other
combinatory approaches.
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 13
References
Allin, T., & Meyer, B. (2021). PUBPOL 850: Using human-centered design. Duke University Bass
Connections. https://bassconnections.duke.edu/using-human-centered-design
American Psychological Association. (2020). American Psychological Association strategic plan.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan
Beach, R. (1986). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for response in the writing
conference. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 56–65.
https://doi.org/10.2307/357382
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and
active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brieger, K., & Bromley, P. (2014). A model for facilitating peer review in the STEM disciplines: A case
study of peer review workshops supporting student writing in introductory biology courses.
Double Helix, 2, 1–10. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/double-helix/v2/brieger.pdf
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.),
Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). The MIT
Press.
Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action (3rd ed.). University of
California Press.
Clark, K. R., & Buckley, M. B. (2017). Using a synthesis matrix to plan a literature review. Radiologic
Technology, 88(3), 354–357. http://www.radiologictechnology.org/content/88/3/354.extract
Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex
relationship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis
writers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 14
Dunn, D. S., Saville, B. K., Baker, S. C., & Marek, P. (2013). Evidence-based teaching: Tools and
techniques that promote learning in the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology,
65(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12004
Dunn, D. S., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Writing as critical thinking. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R. A. Smith
(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices (pp. 163–173).
Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444305173.ch14
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational
assessment and instruction. California Academic Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
Flower, L. (1998). Problem-solving strategies for writing in college and community. Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Forsyth, D. R. (2003). The professor’s guide to teaching: Psychological principles and practices. American
Psychological Association.
Francek, M. (n.d.). Gallery walk. Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College.
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/gallerywalk//index.html
Goodney, D. E., & Long, C. S. (2007). Composing dialogues for critical thinking (EJ824637). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ824637
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/48/
Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology
Education, 25(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167
Harris, J. (2017). Rewriting: How to do things with texts (2nd ed.). Utah State University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7330/9781607326878
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 15
Hein, S. M. (2012). Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,
89(7), 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100217v
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2005). Dialogue as data: Assessing students’ scientific reasoning with
interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science
understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012498365-6/50007-X
Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate
research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education,
91(1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173
Lee, I. (1997). Peer reviews in a Hong Kong tertiary classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 15(1), 58–69.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v15i1.692
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the
reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Matsuhashi, A., Gillam, A., & Moss, B. (1989). A theoretical framework for studying peer tutoring as
response. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 293–
316). National Council of Teachers of English.
Meizlish, D., LaVaque-Manty, D., Silver, N., & Kaplan, M. (2013). Think like/write like. In R. J. Thompson
(Ed.), Changing the conversation about higher education (pp. 53–74). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Muurlink, O., & Poyatos Matas, C. (2011). From romance to rocket science: Speed dating in higher
education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), 751–764.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.539597
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 16
Okita, S. (2012). Social interactions and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of
learning (pp. 3104–3107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1770
Panettieri, R. C. (2015). Can critical-thinking skills be taught? Radiologic Technology, 86(6), 686–688.
http://www.radiologictechnology.org/content/86/6/686.extract
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9
Pittock, S. P. (2014). Mapping the conversation. Stanford University.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191213181611/https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teachin
gwriting/teaching-talk/mapping-conversation
Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for
increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18(1), 29–39.
Quitadamo, I. J., & Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking
performance in general education biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 140–154.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203
Rangachari, P. K. (2010). Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: Learning by doing.
Advances in Physiology Education, 34(3), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00071.2009
Reynolds, J., & Moskovitz, C. (2008). Calibrated peer review assignments in science courses: Are they
designed to promote critical thinking and writing skills? Journal of College Science Teaching,
38(2), 60–66.
Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J., Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate
science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 11(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 17
Speck, B. W. (2002). Facilitating students’ collaborative writing: ASHE-ERIC higher education report:
Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Jossey-Bass.
Stephenson, N. S., Miller, I. R., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. (2019). Impact of peer-led team learning and the
science writing and workshop template on the critical thinking skills of first-year chemistry
students. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5), 841–849.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00836
Stephenson, N. S., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. (2016). Developing critical thinking skills using the science
writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1),
72–79. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00102A
Thompson, C. (2002). Teaching critical thinking in EAP courses in Australia. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 15–20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00104.x
Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science
reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 685–704.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 18
Figure 1
Stages of the Project Sequence
Note. Each stage was framed around the scholarly conversation and designed to help students build
critical thinking and communication skills. RQ = research question. Adapted from PUBPOL 850: Using
Human-Centered Design, by T. Allin and B. Meyer, 2021, Duke University Bass Connections
(https://bassconnections.duke.edu/using-human-centered-design). Copyright 2020 by Duke University.
TEACHING STUDENTS TO JOIN SCHOLARLY CONVERSATIONS 19
Appendix
Student Testimonies Highlight Three Aspects of Growth
Students Developed Critical-Thinking Skills That Allowed Them to Enter the Scholarly Conversation
• Comment 1: “Thinking critically about the strengths and limitations of the sources in the
annotated bibliographies and creating the synthesis matrix gave me a greater understanding of
each source and how they fit together in conversation. Before this semester, I’d often view my
evidence in isolation, like ropes falling from a central claim. But I’ve learned now that stronger
papers synthesize evidence, weaving sources together in a net that more substantially supports
the central claim.”
• Comment 2: “I have learned how to use sources in a way that makes the authors of each piece
collaborate.”
• Comment 3: “Through activities performed in class such as using different color notes and
arrows to link author’s arguments, I can now think through complex scientific studies, draw
connections between sources, and identify gaps in knowledge my argument seeks to fill.”
Through Collaborative Writing, Students Gained New Perspectives on Their Own Thinking and Writing
Process
• Comment 4: “Collaborative writing helped me understand the gaps in my own writing.”
• Comment 5: “When writing with a partner, I learned how to provide and accept constructive
criticism.”
• Comment 6: “Having another person’s view challenges your own thought process.”
Students Viewed Themselves as Scholarly Writers
• Comment 7: “I have come to view myself as a collaborative writer who is not only strong in her
own opinions but flexible and even wanting to work with others.”
• Comment 8: “I’ve learned how to use others’ work to forward my own.”